Failing To Man Up In The Other Blue Heaven

The NY Times prompted high blood pressure across the Upper West Side with this ObamaCare horror story from California:

[My dog] has the kind of health care that I’d hoped the Affordable Care Act would usher in for those who, like my wife and me, have to buy health insurance on the open market. I’d long been frustrated at how health care shackles people to corporate jobs. I believed this legislation, signed four years ago this month, would free people to pursue their dreams, start new companies and not worry about the health insurance penalty.

What I didn’t count on was that it would make things harder for me and my wife.

First, we were notified that we would be kicked out of our existing $263-a-month Anthem Blue Cross plan because it didn’t meet the minimum standards of the new law. No problem, I thought. The plans in the new Covered California exchange would most likely be better and cheaper.

But we were shocked at what we confronted. The least expensive premium for a couple like us in our 40s would be about $620 a month. And because our household adjusted gross income is likely to be over the $62,040 cutoff this year, it’s doubtful we’ll end up with a subsidy to help offset that price increase.

We can see the progressive pushback already - anyone making over $62K per year is rich and ought to thank America, then get back in their private jet and fly to Aspen.

Or, they will wonder why this Evil Republican insists on lying to the rest of us, since he clearly has a better plan now. Or maybe that is not so clear:

I know that Obamacare is helping a great number of people. I understand that for the first time millions of people are getting health insurance. It’s the one thing that gives me solace.

But let’s not pretend that this new policy is the affordable health care savior that many of us were hoping for. For us, our new plan is a big financial hit for a product that does not make it any easier to get basic health care.

It’s still hard to understand what coverage we have. It’s like trying to read tea leaves. Benefits descriptions can be contradictory and run nearly 200 pages long. One summary attached to my online account seems to say that if I go to the emergency room, I could potentially owe thousands of dollars. Another document suggests that I’m responsible for only $300. I’ve had two representatives give me two different explanations. The more I questioned these well-intentioned people, the more I realized how confused, overwhelmed and at times plain wrong they were.

Here’s what I’ve been able to piece together. Previously, our family deductible totaled $13,600 for outpatient care and $6,600 for hospital care (with a maximum combined out-of-pocket cost of $13,600). Under our new plan, we have a deductible of $10,000 (and an out-of-pocket maximum of $12,700). In both cases, having deductibles that high means this is largely insurance to make sure that we don’t go bankrupt if we become very ill. Yes, the new plan has more coverage, including pediatric vision. But we don’t have children, and I’d trade coverage for things like substance abuse treatment and mental health in return for lower premiums.

So he had a high-deductible "junk" plan costing $263/month but now he has a high-deductible Obama-apporoved plan costing $620/month. With pediatric coverage!

The idea that this left coast progressive can bring the right coast home to reality on the absurdities of Obamacare strikes me as madly optimistic. The Annointed have their talking points and will be sticking to them! Still, the fact that the Times was willing to let this whiner splash some of their ink is an interesting straw in the wind. If Obama is losing the Times...

Comments

[Jim Eagle]

Why so many threads at this time of night? I need to go to sleep:)

[henry]

JiB, you can count threads instead of sheep.

[Beasts of England]

Very interesting that this is in The Times. As noted on another thread, this taste of ObamaCare reality may not turn this (probable) lefty into a rep voter, but he and his wife may be less inclined to scramble to the voting booth on election day. And he (and his wife) will be a lot less likely to carry the water for this legislation to friends and family.

[Account Deleted]

DoT raised the question of proper response by the GOP to a request by the Fascists to help them "fix" it. I agree with DoT's observation that an "it's your baby" response would have a political cost attached but I don't see any reason why the GOP should not respond with "we have no idea as to the scope of the problems and have been provided no firm data on the entire program". I wouldn't even ask for more information, I'd just say I'm unwilling to perform radical surgery in the dark.

I actually question whether the Fascists will even address any problems. Trying to revive the dead and stinking albatross hanging from their collective neck does not seem to me to be a wise use of the less than nine months remaining before they suffer severe losses in November.

[jimmyk]

It would seem to me, along the lines Rick says, "We just don't see how it is fixable." As to the specific question of extending subsidies to the Federal exchange: If the GOP isn't capable of saying "No" to yet more spending, especially on this catastrophe, then we are truly doomed. The only issue is marketing: The leadership has to explain that this is throwing good money after bad, that the GOP is unwilling to participate. How unpopular could that be?

[Comanche Voter]

How many times will young "progressives" have to learn that when it comes to "Affordable" Obamacare Insurance program that they're boned---before they turn on their savior and lightworker.

I dunno--some people are just slow learners. And as this old graybeard has known for most of his life, ignorance can be cured, but stupid is generally forever. The ignorant ones--once they're "boned" may wise up--the stupid ones will keep on loving the Bamster.

[Jim Eagle]

henry,

Went to Frederick's Sax lesson this afternoon after school to a local musiic store. They had guitars and basses hanging on the walls. All kind of models. I know zilch about that stuff but all I could think about was you, Gus, BoE and (who is it, Bori or someone else).

He needs individual instruction since the band teacher can't give him the personal atttention. He and I learned more tonight on the Alto Sax than he has learned in 3 years playing. I am looking at the redux of Paul Desmond in about 2 years:)

[Account Deleted]

jimmyk,

I don't know if touching on the cost would be a good idea. There's no need to leave a "cheap GOP bastards" angle open. The expression of empathy to those who believed Democrat lies coupled with a clear statement that no credible information has been furnished regarding the scope and nature of all the problems (has the back end been fixed?) plus an offer to examine each problem in detail in open hearings should be sufficient.

As I said, I doubt a request will even be made. The stink is just too great.

[henry]

JiB, good plan for Frederick. Formal instruction is very helpful in getting technique & confidence up. Encourage F to free jam to tunes on the side -- more fun as well as a better way to learn.

This is the part of experiential learning that helps ( which common core perverts along with everything else). Think of music as a conversation, a language that you learn by speaking up and mimicking others until you find your own voice. We learn to speak before we learn formal grammar, music is similar.

My bass playing was similar to what you describe for Frederick. School orchestra supplemented by private instruction. I see notes on a staff and play them... Only now am I able to find my own voice.

Contrast to two things I excell at. Soccer I played in disorganized leagues in my youth, imitating Pele in the back yard, only getting formal coaching from high school on. Never stopped playing in the less formal "jam sessions" of non roster leagues. Computers were similar, started by hacking games (you bought books and typed the code yourself) then got a job programming after college... Grad School put a formal gloss on top.

[anonamom]

Rick, you've nailed it. It is impossible to fix something when every week brings a new reveal as to a major defect. It's become clear that the Administration has no credibility for the majority of voters.

A 2700 page bill cannot be fixed, it needs to be repealed.

A health care bill that does not address malpractice costs--30% of the costs of care that is given (i.e. cover-your-ass MRIs for headaches and tummy aches, not just the cost of the coverage) and that insane law that makes ERs address every complaint anybody walking through the door makes cannot begin to be functional.

[JiB]

Anonamom,

Perhaps with a farmer in charge of the judiciary committee we'll.get some tort reform:)

[Danube on iPad]

"The only issue is marketing:"

No doubt about it. And that's what makes me a bit uneasy, given our crack marketing team.

[peter]

jib, I spent many hours in a music store taking saxophone lessons and waiting for my brother to complete his clarinet lessons. We both had the same teacher, Mr. Brown. While one was in the soundproofed room taking a lesson, the other one of us roamed around, looking at the LPs, the guitars and other instruments and reading sheet music. To this day, I still love hanging around music stores. Still have the alto sax my parents bought for me fifty years ago.

[Woof!]

There are some doctors you shouldn't take your dog to.

[Steve]

He's a fool if he thought Obamacare was going to be the 'Heath card savior we all were looking for'.

At its best, Obamacare would be beneficial to the relative few who wanted but couldn't afford insurance because of pre-existing conditions, those running up against lifetime caps, and those who wanted their birth control pills covered. Everybody else would pay more in order to provide the first groups with less costly insurance than otherwise would have been the case.

So he gets what he wanted. - insurance for others, a higher price for himself

And we conservatives should stop saying that liberals want higher taxes only for other people - their voting for Obama shows they're willing to pay more themselves.

[boris]

"And we conservatives should stop saying that liberals want higher taxes only for other people - their voting for Obama shows they're willing to pay more themselves"

You should stop saying that ... but I never did.

[MaxB]

Let me see if I can remember how our healthcare got to this point. The U.S. has had a form of “universal healthcare” since 1986 when Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That bill was only 4 pages long, and was part of COBRA. It required any hospital or clinic that received Medicare funds to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or even legal status.

This care did not include things like contraception and viagra, but it did cover preexisting conditions and young people who were not covered by their parents insurance.

Over the years so many people availed themselves of this medical treatment, that some politicians claimed it was a major force driving up healthcare costs. Indeed some large hospitals paid huge salaries to executives who were charged with persuading the uninsured to go somewhere else for their medical care.

Many politicians argued that it was a travesty that people who were too poor to buy health insurance, were sometimes sued by hospitals for medical costs, and were forced to file bankruptcy in order to protect their money and property from those hospitals.

Healthcare costs had been rising dramatically, over the last couple of decades. Politicians offered two fundamentally different approaches to holding those costs down.

One approach, I'll call it the more government or all government approach, was to have politicians and expert bureaucrats make decisions as to what healthcare ALL people would be required to buy. Government experts would set up modern marketing systems that people could use to purchase healthcare and many other innovations that the private sector had never thought of.

By the best estimates of those politicians and their experts, that would save the average family $2400 per year in premiums.

The other approach, I'll call that the facing reality or remembering the history of big government programs approach, was to remove government influences that had been driving costs up, such as antiquated conflicting regulations, unfairness in the tax code, out of control tort system, etc.

[boatbuilder]

Steve--He and all the other libs who voted for this didn't want or expect a higher price for anybody but those fat and happy rich people and "corporate America." They are still wondering what happened to the $2500 Obama promised them.